|
|
Post by beaverstever on Oct 21, 2019 8:12:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sewingbeaver on Oct 21, 2019 9:10:15 GMT -8
He certainly paints the picture of how tough the Pac 12 is going to be this year (again).
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Oct 21, 2019 9:49:25 GMT -8
I've said this before, but it's worth mentioning again. UCLA has an ENOROMOUS schedule advantage. Only playing Stanford, Oregon, and Oregon St once takes away 3 possible, even probable losses for them. UCLA may not have their best team in recent years, but they could have as good as, or better, record if they are good enough to handle the rest of their Pac-12 schedule.
Everybody puts Arizona St 5th in the Pac-12, but I'll be shocked if they end up ahead of Arizona. Speaking of which, that is an advantage for Stanford (as well as for Arizona and Arizona St), only having to play each other once.
Saying all of that, I like this Oregon State team. The play of Taylor, Kennedy, and/or Patricia will be vital to this teams success, and despite where they end up in Pac-12 play, they should be pretty tough come tournament time with the growth/experience under the belt of those young players. Go Beavs!
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Oct 21, 2019 10:10:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Oct 21, 2019 10:11:04 GMT -8
I can't see any possibility of the Pac 12 getting 3 #1 seeds. It's not going to happen. 2 is conceivable, but not 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Oct 21, 2019 17:05:19 GMT -8
I can't see any possibility of the Pac 12 getting 3 #1 seeds. It's not going to happen. 2 is conceivable, but not 3. Agreed. Even if Stanford, Oregon, & Oregon State go undefeated before PAC-12 play, the goofy process used to select #1 seeds will work against these 3 teams because there are 6 losses to spread around in just these games between OSU, UO, Stanford. And unlikely that these 3 teams go through PAC-12 play with only a loss to these teams. I also think 2 x PAC-12 teams can make #1 seeds, but 3 will be nearly impossible. However, I don't think it matters, if we had 3 x PAC-12 teams as #1 or #2 seeds, PAC-12 can create havoc come tournament time. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Oct 21, 2019 20:32:12 GMT -8
Over the last 4 years, the PAC 12 has gone 23-1 in first round NCAA games, and 18-5 in the second round. The conference this year is perhaps even stronger than any of those years, with 4 teams ranked in the top 10. Any PAC 12 team in the tournament will not face any team better than what they've played against night after night during conference play. I expect a really big run by conference teams next March.
In addition to the 6 regular season losses among the big 3 during the regular season, there will be 2 more in the PAC 12 tournament. So, I agree; 3 number 1 seeds isn't going to happen. Two plus a number 2, however, could easily get 3 teams to the Elite Eight, and, possibly, the Final Four.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Oct 22, 2019 8:22:44 GMT -8
So, the PAC12 is close to, if not the clear front running conference this year, and yet the brackert projections still have 8 teams from both the ACC and SEC, and only 6 from the Pac12?
What is the point of having rankings, and any of the fluff if we already know going into the season which conferences are going to get how much of their conference in the post-season?
We already know that the SEC and ACC will get between 8 and 10 teams a piece in the tournament. We also know that the best the Pac12 will do is a max of 6 teams. Why? Why are our second level teams consistently left home to make room for the bottom of these other conferences???
I grow tired of the media and talking heads controlling the process. Next to the RPI, the proliferation of ESPN and it's agenda is the worst thing to ever happen to Pac12 athletics. In all sports.
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,828 
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Oct 22, 2019 8:44:23 GMT -8
So, the PAC12 is close to, if not the clear front running conference this year, and yet the brackert projections still have 8 teams from both the ACC and SEC, and only 6 from the Pac12? What is the point of having rankings, and any of the fluff if we already know going into the season which conferences are going to get how much of their conference in the post-season? We already know that the SEC and ACC will get between 8 and 10 teams a piece in the tournament. We also know that the best the Pac12 will do is a max of 6 teams. Why? Why are our second level teams consistently left home to make room for the bottom of these other conferences??? I grow tired of the media and talking heads controlling the process. Next to the RPI, the proliferation of ESPN and it's agenda is the worst thing to ever happen to Pac12 athletics. In all sports. Well said. "East Coast bias" at the end of the day is about where the population centers are, where the targets of advertising is..... West coast/Pac-12 teams might deserve a berth more than those other teams, but in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven": "Deserve’s got nothing to do with it". Commissioner Scott attempted to address this by adding Denver and SLC population centers to the Pac-12 footprint, but like much of Scott's work to date, it wasn't enough...... Go Beavers! |
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Oct 22, 2019 9:14:08 GMT -8
So, the PAC12 is close to, if not the clear front running conference this year, and yet the brackert projections still have 8 teams from both the ACC and SEC, and only 6 from the Pac12? What is the point of having rankings, and any of the fluff if we already know going into the season which conferences are going to get how much of their conference in the post-season? We already know that the SEC and ACC will get between 8 and 10 teams a piece in the tournament. We also know that the best the Pac12 will do is a max of 6 teams. Why? Why are our second level teams consistently left home to make room for the bottom of these other conferences??? I grow tired of the media and talking heads controlling the process. Next to the RPI, the proliferation of ESPN and it's agenda is the worst thing to ever happen to Pac12 athletics. In all sports. Well said. "East Coast bias" at the end of the day is about where the population centers are, where the targets of advertising is..... West coast/Pac-12 teams might deserve a berth more than those other teams, but in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven": "Deserve’s got nothing to do with it". Commissioner Scott attempted to address this by adding Denver and SLC population centers to the Pac-12 footprint, but like much of Scott's work to date, it wasn't enough...... Go Beavers! True. It's all about serving the population centers. The RPI clearly rewards the population centers. Basically, it props up the east coast vs the west coast. This is widely understood and known at this point, and.... nothing. Zero is being done about it. If I have a criticism of Larry Scott, other than his ridiculous salary, is that he is the invisible man on issues like this that effect schools like OSU far more negatively than say, the California schools, but is clearly bad for the whole conference. The RPI, and it's fall out is also terrible for the G5 conferences around us, which like it or not, very much negatively effects the Pac12. I just don't understand how this plays itself out, year after year, and nothing is even being said about it. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 22, 2019 12:14:10 GMT -8
Well said. "East Coast bias" at the end of the day is about where the population centers are, where the targets of advertising is..... West coast/Pac-12 teams might deserve a berth more than those other teams, but in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven": "Deserve’s got nothing to do with it". Commissioner Scott attempted to address this by adding Denver and SLC population centers to the Pac-12 footprint, but like much of Scott's work to date, it wasn't enough...... Go Beavers! True. It's all about serving the population centers. The RPI clearly rewards the population centers. Basically, it props up the east coast vs the west coast. This is widely understood and known at this point, and.... nothing. Zero is being done about it. If I have a criticism of Larry Scott, other than his ridiculous salary, is that he is the invisible man on issues like this that effect schools like OSU far more negatively than say, the California schools, but is clearly bad for the whole conference. The RPI, and it's fall out is also terrible for the G5 conferences around us, which like it or not, very much negatively effects the Pac12. I just don't understand how this plays itself out, year after year, and nothing is even being said about it. Well... maybe just look at the history of the NCAA tourney. Maybe the best WBB overall is played back East? Look at the results... (6) titles west of the Mississippi, none in 27 years. The number of teams is one issue, but it's not like lower seeds in the tourney actually go anywhere. WBB is very very top heavy when it comes tourney time: The #1 seed is 103–1 against the #16 seed (.990). The #2 & #3 seeds are 104–0 against the #15 & #14 seeds, respectively (1.000). The #4 seed is 98–6 against the #13 seed (.942). The #5 seed is 82–22 against the #12 seed (.788). The #6 seed is 72–32 against the #11 seed (.692). The #7 seed is 67–37 against the #10 seed (.644). The #9 seed is 55–49 against the #8 seed (.529). Lowest seeds to reach each round since the expansion to 64 teams: Second Round: #16 seed Harvard in 1998 (the only #16 seed to beat a #1 seed in either the women's or men's tournament until 2018, and still the only one to do so in the women's tournament) Regional Semifinals (Sweet Sixteen): #13 seed Texas A&M in 1994 Liberty in 2005 Marist in 2007 Regional Finals (Elite Eight): #11 seed Gonzaga in 2011 National Semifinals (Final Four): #9 seed Arkansas in 1998 National Finals (Championship Game): #5 seed Louisville in 2013 National Champion: #3 seed North Carolina in 1994 Tennessee in 1997 So in reality a #1 or #2 seed has won the NC, and rare for lower seeds too far, which is where any mid tier Pac12 team would be placed. |
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Oct 22, 2019 12:41:36 GMT -8
Well... maybe just look at the history of the NCAA tourney. Maybe the best WBB overall is played back East? Look at the results... (6) titles west of the Mississippi, none in 27 years. It's mostly a case of 2 teams (Tennessee then UConn) dominating the sport. It's not that teams back East are better in general.
Also, Baylor is west of the Mississippi and has 3 titles in the last 15 years. I'm not suggesting Baylor is in the West, but they are hardly in the East either.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Oct 22, 2019 16:44:23 GMT -8
Well... maybe just look at the history of the NCAA tourney. Maybe the best WBB overall is played back East? Look at the results... (6) titles west of the Mississippi, none in 27 years. It's mostly a case of 2 teams (Tennessee then UConn) dominating the sport. It's not that teams back East are better in general.
Also, Baylor is west of the Mississippi and has 3 titles in the last 15 years. I'm not suggesting Baylor is in the West, but they are hardly in the East either.
...and the game changed a ton since a lot of those stats were created. You make a good point Baseba11, but the sport has grown a ton, even in just the last few years. I don't think it's out of place to point out that even when our conference is considered the "strongest conference" by many, we are still looking up at 2 conferences where it really matters, and that doesn't seem to change to the least degree. Bottom line. RPI rewards the population centers back east and south, and hurts the west. I don't think there's much argument about that. When the Pac12 does start to fill out, like it is NOW, then we should at minimum be on even footing going in to the post season with other conferences who are regularly putting 60 or 70% of their conference in the post season. I would argue that if things play out like many people think it will then the Pac12 should, by percentage of the conference, have the most teams in the post season. I don't care if the lower teams ever go anywhere. It's a matter of fairness and long term conference success. And, anyway it was just a couple years ago that UW went to the Final 4 as like a 7 or 10 seed or something. The Pac12 MIGHT not be as weak as it is has been able to show. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Oct 22, 2019 17:08:29 GMT -8
The SEC has 14 teams, the ACC 15, and the PAC 12 has, not unexpectedly, 12. If they get 8 and 7 teams in, that's 51.7% of the total; our 6 is, obviously, 50%. That's not much of a disparity.If our conference added 2 more teams like Gonzaga and Boise State, we'd get 8. If we added Montana and Idaho State, we'd still get 6.
Plus, you have to objectively look at the bona fides of the 6 projected to not make it. Both Washington schools and Colorado are easy to eliminate. The other 3- Cal's been there regularly, Utah has added some talent, as has USC. If they build a resume over the course of the season, and still get left out, then we can have this conversation about unfairness.
But if they do well in a fairly soft non-conference schedule (I don't know any of their schedules) with no big quality wins, then go 9 & 9 or 10 & 8 in conference, with maybe a win against an Arizona mixed in, do they deserve a slot? You gotta have the RPI, you gotta have the numbers.
Let's review this again in March.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Oct 22, 2019 19:44:59 GMT -8
It's mostly a case of 2 teams (Tennessee then UConn) dominating the sport. It's not that teams back East are better in general.
Also, Baylor is west of the Mississippi and has 3 titles in the last 15 years. I'm not suggesting Baylor is in the West, but they are hardly in the East either.
...and the game changed a ton since a lot of those stats were created. You make a good point Baseba11, but the sport has grown a ton, even in just the last few years. I don't think it's out of place to point out that even when our conference is considered the "strongest conference" by many, we are still looking up at 2 conferences where it really matters, and that doesn't seem to change to the least degree. Bottom line. RPI rewards the population centers back east and south, and hurts the west. I don't think there's much argument about that. When the Pac12 does start to fill out, like it is NOW, then we should at minimum be on even footing going in to the post season with other conferences who are regularly putting 60 or 70% of their conference in the post season. I would argue that if things play out like many people think it will then the Pac12 should, by percentage of the conference, have the most teams in the post season. I don't care if the lower teams ever go anywhere. It's a matter of fairness and long term conference success. And, anyway it was just a couple years ago that UW went to the Final 4 as like a 7 or 10 seed or something. The Pac12 MIGHT not be as weak as it is has been able to show. Yep.....Storrs, CT, that metropolis of 15,000 people heavily distorts the RPI. Good Call! You can say East Coast basis, but with our conference including the “population center” of LA, your argument is BS. |
|
